Text · page 6 of 7
Read the whole document on one page (all 7 pages, each with its own heading)
• Whether the request is substantial – No it is not; it is within the footprint of the original building • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – No it will not • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – He does not believe that is true; it passes the balancing test to grant the variance All members voted in favor of the motion. GRANTED Application # 6149 Lauren McDermott – Requesting one (1) area variance for a proposed accessory structure at 6813 Taylor Road (Zoned RA) Lauren McDermott (Herbert), homeowner, spoke on the variance. This variance is for 32 x 60 ft. pole barn. This would be 1920 sq. ft. She purchased the property in 2022. Since then she has removed three dilapidated structures totaling approximately 12,000 sq. ft. The property sits on about five acres of land. There are currently five accessory still standing. Two of them will be coming down within the next few years due to disrepair. The other three are in need of extensive repair and they are not watertight so they cannot be used for storage. The new pole barn would not be near the property line of either neighbor. It would sit in front of the space where another two story barn was recently tore down that was about 40 ft. tall. It was 9,600 sq. ft. This would be a one story pole barn and will not exceed 18 ft. The variance is needed for the square footage. The Board had no further questions. Findings: Mr. Yoder made a motion, seconded by Mr. Adrian, to approve Application # 6149. On the question: Mr. Yoder reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: • Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – It will not • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – No • Whether the request is substantial – That can be argued • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – It will not • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – That can be argued, but the balancing test favors granting the variance